My Photo

About This Site

  • CAPblog is an unofficial journal of the Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force Auxiliary.

    The opinions published here are those of the individual authors and visitors to this site. They are not the views of the Civil Air Patrol, or the United States Air Force.

    About "DATA"

Search CAPblog

Blogs I Read


« Stop The Insanity | Main | Twelve O'Clock High »

December 28, 2006


Major Carrales

I should like to speculate on your historical juxaposition of McPeak and the Major General.

1) McPeak's "reforms" have been long lasting. The total reversal of a uniform has not taken place to this day. We can assume, especially since many have purchased the coat in question...the CAP Distinctive Service Coat will be around for a long while.

2) McPeak's vision of the Air Force was slowly turned around by Gen Fogleman(sp) and included altering USAF customs. The Major General hasn't really been alone in the changing of CAP policy.

3) The Major General's sucessor is likely to face as much criticism, lest you can find some Saint to take his place. Odds are if someone has rised to the command of a Region they are not likely defined as a "Saint." Many "Venerables" but none with no rival or enemy. If you know of someone who is Saintly, please post the name so that I might study this person's record and judge fo rmyself.


"What if" we let the IG investigate this first before we get a quote on moving the General back to Florida.

Speculation does little for the organization and only fuels the fire for those disgruntled former members that continue to drag us through the mud.


I worry about his replacement, as Pinada has spent every second of his free time (when he's not issuing policy letters for uniform changes) on stacking the NEC and NB with his ditto-monkeys. Here would be my priorities:

1) Cancel all C182/G1000 orders and replace with glass C172's. With federal funding shrinking, state/local funding getting tougher, our member's paychecks weaker than ever, and fuel prices inflated, it just makes more sense to have 172's. And the 182 is too much airplane for cadet primary flight training.

2) End the contract with Vanguard. As a volunteer, I hate the fact that my time and money are so disrespected by National's inability to get a quality/affordable uniform supplier. From the crack-head organization, to the unrecognizable/non-existent images, to the inflated prices, to the crappy customer service, to the inability to stock all authorized uniform items, to the (I'm gonna stop here because my blood pressure is rising) - they've just got to go.

3) Rewrite the 39-1. I feel down-right embarrassed when orientating new members and covering the uniform topic. While I'm no huge fan of the TPU, I know a lot of people who have invested $$$ in it, so it can stay. But the regulation as a whole needs to be rewritten with CLARITY and CONSISTENCY. Lay out the name for each AF-Style Uniform and CAP Distinctive uniform up front, and keep terms the same throughout.

4) Eliminate the term CORPORATION from the CAP vocabulary. In the rest of the jungle, our organization is a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION (yes, 501(c)3's are incorporated, but they almost never refer to themselves as corporations). Then, get back in the right direction of moving CLOSER to the Air Force. It is CAP - not USAF - that pushes this 'we have to separate to do HLS missions because of posse commitatus' crap. Our missions are ENHANCED by a closer relationship with the USAF.

5. Get NHQ's technology programs out of the gutter. The MIMS-OPSQUALS transition did nothing to improve the usability and effectiveness of these crumby applications. I'm working on a series of CAP technology articles for CAPTek - the CAP Technology Blog at which will elaborate on this subject and call for open, collaborative technology efforts.

Major Carrales


Nothing in my reply points to the Major General being "put out to pasture." My first point was to illustrate that a total reversal of the new Corp. Service Coat would bring ill feeling on whoever did so since many a CAP officer already has one.

The second point, talks about "McPeak's legacy" and the those acts attributed to the Major General being not being as "unilateral" as some would have us believe.

The last point talks about the Major General's successor, be this current issue true or false, the Major General will one day (likely at the end of this term) no longer be National Commander. At that time a new Major General will arise. I point out the difficulty in finding a person free from the politics et al of the position.

We will all wait for the IG's comments, findings and a resolution to this issue. We must also give the man an "even shake." I think the whole problem with this is that it was taken to the court of public opinion instead of the system. And for that we will all suffer the slings and arrows.

Major Carrales


Major Carrales,

I was not commenting on your post at all. My comment was in response to the original article on the blog asking what if TP steps down.

Sorry for the confusion.

Major Carrales

I too appologize, this issue has polarized CAP unlike any in a long while.

Major Carrales


KidMystic wrote:

1) Cancel all C182/G1000 orders and replace with glass C172's. With federal funding shrinking, state/local funding getting tougher, our member's paychecks weaker than ever, and fuel prices inflated, it just makes more sense to have 172's. And the 182 is too much airplane for cadet primary flight training.
While we agree that the 182 is too much airplane for primary flight instruction for cadets, the fact is that CAP's federal funding is GROWING by leaps and bounds, not shrinking.

Second, I'd venture to guess you're either not a pilot, or live somewhere with no mountains and/or a surface elevation of less than 2,000' because the C-172 simply lacks the performance to perform our mission in those conditions. Anyone who performs mountain SAR in a C-172 with a crew of more than two is a fool not long for this earth, for it simply does not have any excess power to get one's hiney out of trouble.

In virtually all situations, the C-182 is a superior platform for CAP work; it can take a greater payload higher, farther and faster than a C-172 can. Even in scenarios where the Skylane's extra performance is not essential, it provides a safety margin few pilots I know would turn down, making it the wise choice for CAP.

Other than for cadet flight instruction and new pilot development, I see no need for the C-172 in the CAP fleet.



When it comes down to it, the C172 is 30% cheaper to operate than the C182. The majority of this country is under 2000', making standardizing on the C182 a poor economic choice for our pilots and our organization. It's cheap and the appropriate choice for most applications.

Rocket Man

Standardizing on the C172 means that about 1/3 of the country would not be covered by CAP aircraft due elevation. While the C172 is cheaper to operate than the C182, it's a less capable aircraft overall. Having a single standard airframe nationwide makes it far easier to rotate a/c due to ops tempo and usage patterns.



The primary purpose of our airplanes are to serve CAP's ES function. While the 172 is a good plane for orientation flights and flight training, it ranks quite poorly for ES. It has neither the size nor carrying capacity to do the job properly. Most of the 172s will carry no more than two people on board with anything more than 3/4 tanks. You'd be surprised how fast the weight can add up inside, what with pilot, observer, flight gear, survival gear, etc. Further, because of their size they can be quite uncomfortable for most sorties which can be upwards of two hours. Thus the 172 is NOT the most appropriate choice for our primary flight operations.
Cheap operations is not a problem as the vast majority of these are USAF funded mission.
I don't know what your flight experience is but I can be reasonably sure that you have not spent two hours cramped in a C172, on a 95 degree day, at 1000' AGL, running various search patterns and getting bounced all over the place due to convective activity.
No, the C182 IS the much better airplane for CAP's primary flight operations.


I haven't any knowledge (or opinion) about the investiation and frankly I trust the AF & IG to find the truth. However, I am concerned about the actions CAP higher-ups are taking to distance the organization from the Air Force. What can a regular member do to express concerns or offer suggestions? I joined CAP to support and be a part of the Air Force and I feel we are abandoning our historic mission. Thank you.


I agree that the 182 is a better platform for our missions. Anyone that has spent any time trying to take photos out of a 172 can attest to that. There is simply not enough room to work with SDIS etc.

Not to mention all of the other good points that have already been discussed re: perfromance.


I thought I would alert you to the new professional conduct memo TP sent out, which mentioned a blog. It seems that he has found out about this site and is not pleased and is trying to regulate member's off-duty conduct. I must say that the only way for an organization to improve is for the problems (be they personnel or otherwise) to be made known and addressed, so they can be fixed. It saddens me that he is attempting to regulate what members say about the organization.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter


    CAP News Online

    Air Force Link

    Tip Jar

    Come And Pay?

    Tip Jar